Memeorandum

Prediction Markets

July 31, 2004

George Bush may have delivered a rough draft of his convention speech while speaking in Springfield, Missouri yesterday. Set it alongside Kerry's acceptance speech and judge for yourself who says more about: education; outsourcing and worker training; our goals in Iraq; Vietnam; health care; taxes, and family values. Undecided voters who get hung up on "specifics" may prefer the Bush approach.

I also have taken to fuming about the fact that, in his speech, Kerry was fulsome in his praise for Vietnam veterans but didn't find time thank our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who are risking their lives today. George Bush does a bit better on that, too.

A Times anecdote suggets that Kerry's economic populism caught hold. From the sixth paragraph of a story buried on Saturday's p. A11:

"Kerry was great," Ms. Bergen said. "He said very clearly that he's going to stop big business from taking our jobs out of the country. I think it's going to really attract a lot of undecided voters, and even some Republicans."

That is, Bush is a moron when he lets toads like this hop out of his mouth:

"What if we became a country again that knows that we're true to our promise, because never again is there bigotry or hatred in the leadership of our nation?"

Huh? Fortunately, an aide was there to explain to the reporter that "[Kerry] had inadvertently melded two lines from his speech".

Bush is also a moron when he shows no awareness of our nation's history:

"We've always had leadership that was willing to level with the American people".

That leadership includes Johnson, Nixon (I think Kerry remembers some of their "leveling", in a different context), Reagan, and Clinton (forget Monica - I am thinking of Clinton's promise that our peacekeepers in Bosnia would be home by the end of the year, a promise taken as so absurd when he said it that it's breach was not even viewed as a lie).

OK, the "they all lie" defense is not the best route for Bush supporters to take (and I am not). But one might expect Kerry or his listeners to pause briefly on the absurdity of this.

In their on-going attempt to create an illusion of interaction with their readership, the NY Times cherry-picks letters from their readers in order to reinforce whatever theme the editors are hammering. (Well, that's my theory as to why I am never printed.)

Here is the recipe John Kerry's speechwriters used for his acceptance speech: 40 percent, Vietnam service; 35 percent, an attack on George Bush; 5 percent, tell George Bush not to attack him; 20 percent platitudes; 0 percent substance. Let simmer for 45 minutes. Serve with thousands of balloons.

Jason Hochstrasser
University Place, Wash.
July 30, 2004

And from what we suspect is the left:

To the Editor:

Re "Kerry's Acceptance: 'There Is a Right Way and a Wrong Way to Be Strong' '' (transcript, July 30):

None of your analysts or editorialists seem to have noticed the clear implication of John Kerry's claim that "I defended this country as a young man": that the war in Vietnam was, as George W. Bush has claimed of his war in Iraq, a war of self-defense.

This is not a promising start for the effort to restore credibility to the White House.

The American Civil Liberties Union is in turmoil over a promise it made to the government that it would not knowingly hire people whose names appear on watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism. Those lists are the very type it has strongly opposed in other contexts. (Note - such as no-fly lists).

The group made the promise not to employ people it knew to be on similar terrorism lists so that it could continue participating in a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions.

We are talking about roughly $470,000 in annual contributions through this payroll deduction program, out of a toal ACLU budget in excess of $100 million.

Now, the wrinkle is this - the ACLU is opposed to watchlists, blacklists, and the like, and well they might be. But they seemed to face a dilemma here - stay eligible for the payroll deduction program and comply with the terrorism watchlist (bad), or give up the money (also bad). Fortunately, their executive director found a third way:

These two appraisals of Kerry's acceptance speech make us smile. First, Phil Carter:

Overall, I thought that John Kerry gave an excellent acceptance speech last night. He hit the important notes he needed to hit...

Nonetheless, I was a little disappointed by the speech on the national security issues. The single most important national security issue facing America today is intelligence reform. On this issue, Sen. Kerry played hard to get... this was Sen. Kerry's great moment in the spotlight to say something on this issue, and he didn't use the opportunity.

On the whole, I thought it was pretty good. But there is one thing that bugged me about it--and bugs me about the Kerry campaign in general: Kerry's continued lack of specificity about what he would do in Iraq.

...Kerry's own position on Iraq is so ambiguous that it too seems simplistic.

July 30, 2004

This seems to be an epilogue to the TNR conspiracy that Evil BushCo had ordered Pakistan to produce Al Qaeda captives during the Democratic convention:

Pakistan's prime minister-designate, Shaukat Aziz, has survived an assassination attempt. The suicide bomb attack in central Punjab province left at least five people dead.

...No one has claimed responsibility for the attack but authorities suspect it could be the work of Islamic militants angry at Pakistan's backing of the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who survived two attempts on his life last year, has strongly condemned the attack on his finance minister, who is credited with turning around a troubled economy.

Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism and has been cracking down on Islamic militant groups that have direct or indirect ties to the al-Qaida terror network. The assassination attempt on Mr. Aziz followed the announcement early Friday that Pakistan has captured a senior al-Qaida operative wanted in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The man, identified as Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani from Tanzania, is on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists.

Should I state the obvious? (Why change format now!) - this is a serious business in Pakistan - people capture terrorists, and other people die. I have no doubt the US is pressuring them to produce results, but the notion that the Pakistan Gov't. can pluck these people off of a shelf to suit Karl Rove's campaign schedule continues to strike me as absurd.

*The most striking characteristic of Kerry's speech, as with this whole Democratic convention and as with Kerry's traditional approach to defining himself (or, rather, un-defining himself) - particularly coming from a challenger - was its astounding defensiveness. I am too a patriot. I am too willing to defend this country from its enemies. I'm not gonna let the UN veto actions to defend the country. I do too share your values. I do too believe in God. I'm not gonna jack up your taxes. I'm not a pessimist or a mean, angry guy.

At some point, you have to wonder if the Democrats ever ask themselves why it is that they should have to say things like this. When you have to spend half the time at your own party's convention three months before the general election trying to convince people that you are not an unpatriotic, amoral, unprincipled, godless weenie, perhaps the convention shouldn't be the first time you deal with the problem.

We await confirmation of this already-but-unconvincingly-denied story from Al-Bawaba. A reason for hope - if, I say IF he has been captured, the US side would prefer to keep it quiet as long as possible, since Zarqawi should be an excellent source of current intel on the insurgency in Iraq.

Yesterday's Zarqawi head fake (and see the Command Post) was denied within hours - this story has been hanging out there for a while (but on a Friday afternoon...).

A reason for pessimism - yesterday's denied story told us that Al-Zarqawi "has reportedly been arrested in Western Iraq. Al-Zarqawi has been arrested by Iraqi police and US military close to the border with Syria".

Today's story says that Al Zarqawi "has been captured near the Syrian border. Zarqawi... was captured during a joint operation by US forces and Iraqi police...".

And the Al-Jazeera version today even repeats the details of his clothing from yesterday's story.

Something he didn't say, actually - In his big speech to the Democratic Convention, Kerry put a lot of effort into establishing his credibility on national security. However, he failed to address two critical points - what is our mission in Iraq, and who is our enemy in the war on terror.

These are not minor questions, but they were too tricky for Kerry to tackle.

The closest Kerry came to defining a mission in Iraq was this:

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

And what is the job, Senator? For most of the delegates, getting the troops home is the job; it is a fair guess that Kerry deliberately slid past this point rather than expose his own party to some hard truths. However, if he is not willing to lead his own party, how can we expect him to lead the nation? Is "the job" to create a stable Iraq, or a democratic Iraq? This speech would have been a good forum in which to say.

As to the nature of the war on terror, Kerry offered few insights:

We are a nation at war: a global war on terror against an enemy unlike we've ever known before.

Rather than describe the enemy, however, Mr. Kerry segued to health care. He later returned to the subject with this:

...then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose, and we will win." The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

Pretty clear, huh? We are freedom, and we are fighting fear.

The editorials of the NY Times and the Washington Post illustrate Mr. Kerry's dilemma, each criticizing his speech in their own fashion (and we will let you guess which is which):

He did not, however, provide a clear vision on Iraq. Voters needed to hear him say that he understands, in retrospect, that his vote to give President Bush Congressional support to invade was a mistake. It's clear now that Mr. Kerry isn't going to go there, and it's a shame.

How a long look backwards will help us is left unexplained.

Mr. Kerry was right to chide Mr. Bush for alienating allies unnecessarily. But what is "the job" in Iraq? He didn't say. Mr. Kerry could have spoken the difficult truth that U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for a long time. He could have reaffirmed his commitment to completing the task of helping build democracy. Instead, he chose words that seemed designed to give the impression that he could engineer a quick and painless exit.

The WaPo editors have an especially brutal close:

But [Mr. Kerry] will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs.

MORE: Our Secret Spy was in Kerry's room cleaning up the trash, and found a draft of the speech! Here are a couple of seemingly sure-fire applause lines that were *not* delivered:

(1) I am a man of faith. But I will make this pledge to you tonight - I will never allow my faith to inform a decision I will make as your President!

And,

(2) My fellow citizens, our great country was attacked on Sept 11, 2001, and I will make you this solemn promise - never again. Never again. Never again will we allow the deaths of three thousand innocent Americans to distract us from our national debate on health care.

I don't know why he dropped them. Point (1) would have brought down the house.

With all the flap about the TNR-predicted capture of an Al Qaeda High Value Target during the Democratic Convention, it is helpful to turn to the NY Times for persepctive, and a sly bit of New York humor.

The capture of Number 22 on the FBI Most Wanted list made the front page - sort of. At the bottom of the front page the Times runs a "What's Inside" feature; there, the headline "Suspect in '98 Bombing Held" directs the reader to page A3.

However, it is the headline immediately below that delivers the perspective - "Paranoia All Around".

Ostensibly, they are directing the reader to the movie reviews for "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Village". But we know they are promoting Paul Krugman (see his P.P.S) and others.

July 29, 2004

We'll see how this works blogging semi-live, but I'll re-structure a bit and open with my reaction.

I thought Kerry sounded angry for most of the speech. Maybe he is, but is that the tone he wanted?

His makeup man needs to be shot - Kerry looked better in the bunny suit. Kerry is trying to be Kennedy, but he's sweating like Nixon.

As to presentation, John Kerry was in the convention hall, and the delegates were in the convention hall, but was it the same convention hall? I thought the two sides had trouble getting together on laugh and applause lines, at least in the first half of the speech.

I score this speech as a disappointment. But a caveat - I thought Staccato Al Gore was a bomb in 2000 - Rapid Fire Al delivered the speech like he was calling a horserace (had a plane to catch; had to go to the bathroom; had experimented with crystal meth... insert your favorite simile), and I thought Al flopped, but folks loved it, and he bounced, so what did I know?

Lots on national security - left me a skeptic, but I'm not his target. And the domestic stuff arrived, eventually.

'No confetti. All right, go balloons, go balloons. We need more
balloons. All balloons! All balloons! Keep going! Come on, guys, lets
move it. Jesus! We need more balloons. I want all balloons to go,
goddammit. Go confetti. Go confetti. More confetti. I want more
balloons. What's happening to the balloons? We need more balloons.

'We need all of them coming down. Go balloons- balloons? What's
happening balloons? There's not enough coming down! All balloons, what
the hell! There's nothing falling! What the fuck are you guys doing up
there? We want more balloons coming down, more balloons. More balloons.
More balloons'...

MORE: Actually, the TNR second paragraph was "This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar...", so I can be a bit flexible. But Number 22? No crow for me, thanks, but I may have some Buffalo Wings later. Unless the networks cut away, forget it.

UPDATE: Sound and fury at Memeorandum; Gregory Djerejian admonishes the now-daft Josh Marshall, who is convinced that the capture of Al Qaeda HVTs is a bad thing (I summarize unfairly, perhaps). Well, I stand by my original commentary on the TNR piece, which I updated with eerie prescience on July 20 - this has been an ongoing tussle.

EVEN MORE: While we are at it, let's deplore this shameless manipulation of the diplomatic process, too.

RIYADH : Saudi Arabia has restored relations with Iraq after a break of more than 13 years and agreed to cooperate on security, said a joint statement released on Thursday after a visit to the kingdom by Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Drink half a quart of Scotch, tie a plastic bag around your head, and try to get some rest...

NO! Her advice is worse:

We're going to need a thorough foreign policy makeover - from Afghanistan to Israel - before we have the credibility to stand up for anyone's human rights. You can't play the gender card with dirty hands.

I would pay extra if the Times would let her expound at length on just what sort of foreign policy makeover she would like to see with respect to Israel (a one-sentence hint is here). Kerry has been trying hard to keep the support of the Jewish community - if he were to embrace Ms. Ehrenreich's notions this afternoon, I would be spared any need to watch his speech tonight.

It's Capture Osama Day over at the TNR, and boy, am I positioned for some crow if they are right.

Meanwhile, Osama's purported hiding place, Waziristan, has come to New York, or at least to the New Yorker. Eliza Griswold was there; the story is not available on-line, but there is some discussion here and here.

First, the now-mandatory "I find the timing of this hearing very suspicious".

Secondly, who said, "If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

Thirdly, ...[WAIT! Your second point makes NO SENSE! Of COURSE this guy has an attorney, and the story is about a COURT HEARING, which is, HELLO, Due Process! And what clown thinks that all Muslims are ARABS? Does the wife's name SOUND Arabic? This is the stupidest thing I have read today!]

July 28, 2004

ABC News is telling us that one of the Democratic Party's biggest contributors has mob connections. So what - the real story is, why did the Bush White House leak this now?!?!?

Well, I am just trying to get ahead of the Times here- nothing in the story actually suggests a White House leak (or any "new" news at all. Just shows what happens when you have a convention and let the press get bored.)

Here is a dirt sheet on Stephen Bing, the big contributor. And he is big (be sure to spell "Stephen" correctly) - but no recent Kerry contributions appear here (does Edwards count?).

UPDATE: A contrast in styles - ABC story soundbites to "Father of Liz Hurley's love child hangs with mobsters and writes big checks to Dems". Bring it on!

The NY Times front-pages something written for the folks who turn to the sports section for coverage of NCAA investigations into recruiting violations - the confusing connections, in our new McCain-Feingold era, between the "independent" 527s, and the Democratic Party.

"A Delegate, a Fund-Raiser, and a Very Fine Line" is Responsible Journalism - serious, and seriously soporific. However, the closest the NY Times comes to admitting that their cheerleading for McCain Feingold was utterly naive is this:

When the new campaign finance law was debated in Congress its supporters argued that it would cut the tie between big money contributors and lawmakers. Its opponents countered that it would drive that money away from the national parties and into other, more opaque, affiliated groups that would operate like shadow political parties.

No kidding. This article shows some of the ways that happens. But no, there is no acknowledgement of the Times editorial position.

Somewhere on the to-do list is to track how many convention stories the NY Times runs based on the theme that the Democratic delegates are waay to the left of the message being presented. Then, when the Reps have their convention and the Times writes about nothing else, we can mock and ridicule them (to no avail).

In a similar vein, the Times runs a total puffer on Kerry's foreign policy vision. The stage is set with quotes from Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. I then find a critical quote about Kerry the flip-flopper from Max Boot in the early going; this is followed by bits from the Brookings Institute, a Kerry advisor, extracts from Kerry's speeches, a former Clinton Admin official, William Perry (identified as a former defense secretary, with a Kerry-friendly quote), Kerry again, Jimmy Carter, Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke, more from anonymous Kerry advisors, and then Bill Clinton. Pretty balanced! I guess Max Boot can take them all on before mid-morning tea.

Now, as a personal favor from the Kerry supporters out there - I understand why Kerry (and the Times) might like me to believe this next bit, but what is the basis for it:

A second major terrorist attack on the United States could push a Kerry administration in equally unexpected directions. Mr. Kerry would probably feel the need to respond quickly with overwhelming force. But would shaken allies go along?.

Really? Why wouldn't he feel the need to consult with our allies, or go to the UN? Yes, I understand he parrots this boilerplate bit about "As president, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake", but the Times itself immediately qualifies that by adding "while making clear that he would define imminent danger far more stringently than Mr. Bush."

And this very story has this:

The rest of the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief with a Kerry administration, one willing to listen rather than bully," said James P. Rubin, a State Department spokesman in the Clinton years and a Kerry adviser. "He will not agree with the Europeans on everything, but NATO would be a first rather than a last resort."

Isn't that consistent with a "consult first" doctrine? Or are we meant to believe that he will consult for a week or so, and then respond quickly with overwhelming force? Does Kerry really give up on diplomacy and consultations that quickly?

Barack Obama gave a stirring "One America" speech to the Democratic convention, and good for him.

So what is John Edwards going to do, come on as a rebuttal speaker with his "Two Americas" speech?

How many Americas will we be hearing about by the time Kerry speaks? Hey, this is getting interesting.

But seriously, folks - props to Mr. Obama, and we hope he lives up to his promise. It would be great for America, the Democratic Party, and even the Republicans if a serious black politician could emerge (and yes, we continue to have high hopes for Harold Ford.)

I'm not talking about someone protected by a gerrymandered district, or a professional grievance pol like Al Sharpton - I'm looking for someone we could all take seriously.

Since we have been following coverage of Theresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" adventure, and as a courtesy to my new friends at Media Matters, we thought we would take a moment to see how the NY Times covered this. You will be shocked to learn that, among the major media I looked at, they were hands-down the most gentle with Ms. Heinz Kerry in their coverage.

In other "dog bites man" news, I set my alarm early, and can confirm to you that the sun does rise in the East.

It turns out that Mr. Black works at Media Matters, the new David Brock media watchdog group, which is kind of interesting - he is doing paid media commentary on one site, and a lot of anonymous media criticism on the other... and I'm still not that concerned. Yes, there is the potential for a self-serving echo-chamber effect, but what else is new in the wild, wild blogosphere. Maybe I would care if I could take the Brock group seriously.

But by odd coincidence, I actually bumped into a Brocker just yesterday while gawking at the coverage of the Theresa Heinz Kerry "shove it" incident. Oliver Willis had a factually deficient post at his personal site which has now become a factually deficient article (with four authors!) at the Mind Over Media Matters site [make that two factually deficient articles]. I strongly encourage anyone who thought this group might be serious to study this (and there is more snide commentary here).

So that's where Atrios is working. Pretty impressive.

MORE: I am begging myself to take my own advice and ignore these jokers, but my eye was drawn to this, and this, on the question of whether the Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US.

July 27, 2004

The right solution to this organizational question is a puzzle to us. We like competition and diversity, as a general rule. We like the way the INR (located in State) were the unheard voices of reason during the pre-war intelligence debacle. So we don't quite see that tighter coordination is the solution.

I would stare at the example set by the well-regarded CBO before I leapt to create a czar, especially if I were a Congressperson. Intel would be shared, but Congress would have its own analysts team, somewhat free of executive branch control. We have the CIA, the DIA, the INR - why not add a Congressional wing?

Drudge excerpts a bizarre chat between Fox News' Brit Hume, and Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. Ms. Cahill's contention - the Kerry campaign smells a rat, and wonders why the potentially embarrassing photos of Kerry in a bio-hazard suit were leaked. But this bit is hard to figure:

CAHILL: well, yesterday senator john glenn, obviously he was an astronaut in his previous life sexrvings senator carr took a tour of a bio facility at nasa. it was just the two of them, and the nasa staff, and all of a sudden this is a leaked photo.

HUME: it was leaked?

CAHILL: yes.

HUME: it was made by nasa, right?

CAHILL: yes, it was.

HUME: so the campaign had no idea there would be any photographs.

CAHILL: none.

HUME: when it was agreed he would put on his th costume.

CAHILL: there was no press there. there was -- nothing. all of the sudden these photographs are out.

Maybe "the campaign" had no idea that there would be any photographs, but Kerry must have known - what did he think was happening when the four people gathered together and smiled? Who is he smiling at in the other photos (or does he just smile all the time now? Someone show him this poll!)

C'mon, there are cameras everywhere. Kerry should not let his campaign manager go out and embarrass herself this way.

MORE: We note the Drudge oversell - how does he back up this lede: "Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill claims 'dirty tricks' by NASA"

"We tried it their way for 12 years, we tried it our way for eight, and then we tried it their way for four more," Mr. Clinton said, a grin breaking out across his face. "By the only test that matters - whether people were better off when we were finished than when we started - our way worked better."

We're glad to see he has a sense of humor about it. First, it is clear that for all their clamoring for international cooperation, the "we" in this construction does not include the liberated people of Eastern Europe.

Secondly, I suspect Bill Clinton has a pretty good idea as to how history will view his phony peace and his phony prosperity.

July 26, 2004

Mickey links to an interesting entry in the (ongoing) tin-foil hat contest: Bush will spring the grand unification deal, pardoning the Plame Leakers and Sandy Berger.

Well, OK. Folks have wondered why the Berger investigation is just hanging fire, and why the FBI has not yet interviewed Sandy Berger. This footdragging may be consistent with a possible deal, since Evil BushCo would not have wanted the FBI to simply drop the whole thing months ago.

I don't buy the connection to a Bush leak, though - why not let the Berger news be an October Surprise for Kerry? Or leak it as a Plame announcement gets closer (Hey, maybe it is!).

I'll say this - if Kerry wins, pardons become HIGHLY probable. And a good thing for Kerry, since it lets him look forward, not backward.

MORE: A possible reason to support Kerry, and this doubles as an entry in the tin foil hat contest, for which the winner receives a personalized, hand-wrapped, tin-foil lined NY Yankees ball cap signed by the entire staff of JustOneMinute - if Bush loses, his parting Chrismas gift to the mullahs of Iran will be to blast their nuclear facilities. They will howl, but Kerry will take over, give a Gallic shrug, and say, hey, we wanted him out, too - waddya gonna do?

Enough with the exclamation points, already. Dr. D links to a description of the Bush approach to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations; here is a friendly intrview with the NY Times where John Kerry gives his thoughts.

If Bush steals this issue right back from Kerry, where does that leave Tall John?

We admire Mr.Sullivan's integrity in presenting his (near) endorsement of John Kerry during a pledge week.

The VodkaPundit wades through the endorsement; Andrew defends himself against the charge that this was all about gay marriage.

Our view? Please. Andrew identifies some issues where Bush has been bad from a conservative perspective (trade, federalism) and slides by the fact that Kerry will surely be worse. He also speculates that maybe Kerry won't be a disaster in the war on terror - hey, let's fly under the bridge!

Just do it, Andrew, and no pretense. The President's support for the FMA wasn't a straw that broke the camel's back - it was a hundred pound boulder.

Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack, a key factor in John Kerry's primary sweep and the primetime convention speaker tomorrow, has derided blacks, southerners and easterners as bad speakers because she couldn't understand them.

In inflammatory columns for her local newspaper obtained by the Herald, the normally soft-spoken Vilsack tore into several minority and ethnic groups while lampooning non-midwesterners for regional dialects.

"I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires,'' Vilsack wrote in a 1994 column in the Mount Pleasant News, while her husband, Tom, was a state senator.

Vilsack wrote that southerners seem to have ``slurred speech,'' wrote that she'd rather learn Polish than try to speak like people from New Jersey, and wrote that a West Virginian waitress once offered her friend a ``side saddle'' instead of a ``side salad.''

There's more. We are assured by the Kerry side that her views from 1994 are "ancient clips". Ancient? So what does that make the "Kerry went to Vietnam while Bush went AWOL" theme, Jurassic? We're just glad a Republican didn't say this (and don't anyone tell Josh Marshall - he'll snap a pencil!)

This isn't all new - if I recall, it was H.L. Mencken who observed that the most effective method of birth control yet invented was a Brooklyn accent.

``Later, on the boardwalk, I heard mothers calling to their children, `I'll meet yoose here after the movie,' '' she wrote. ``The only way I can speak like residents of New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania is to let my jaw drop an inch and talk with my lips in an `O' like a fish. I'd rather learn to speak Polish.''

Every Jersey Guy will know how to respond this. Not that we are necessarily proud of it...

And when will we stop beating their wives? Maybe when they stop being featured in prime time as the smiling face of the Democratic Party.

Sen. Mitch McConnell released a scathing summary of the Joseph Wilson debacle a few days ago. He noted, among other things, the wide press coverage of Wilson's charges and the less-frenzied efforts by the same media outlets to correct the record.

This seems to have prodded Howard Kurtz of hte WaPo to gather a few more numbers. Via Glenn, we see that the Captain is on this.

One lesson - if the Reps scream the press will cover this. Some of the press coverage last year was media frenzy over stock story lines (the whistleblower, the Spy Who Loved Me...), but the coverage was also driven by the howls of Democratic biggies.

Theresa Heinz Kerry jumps back into our "Not Ready for Prime Time" comedy with her latest. Matt Drudge blared it; Oliver Willis misread it (see UPDATE); and the AP has more (also at ABC News)::

Teresa Heinz Kerry urged her home-state delegates to the Democratic National Convention to restore a more civil tone to American politics, then minutes later told a newspaperman to "shove it."

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," the wife of Sen. John Kerry told her fellow Pennsylvanians on Sunday night at a Massachusetts Statehouse reception.

Minutes later, Colin McNickle, the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, questioned her on what she meant by the term "un-American," according to a tape of the encounter recorded by Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

Heinz Kerry said, "I didn't say that" several times to McNickle. She then turned to confer with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others. When she faced McNickle again a short time later, he continued to question her, and she replied, "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."

The un-American tone? Has Ms. Heinz Kerry been naturalized, or is this a self-referential nod to her "Asses of Evil" days?

The convention hasn't even started but so far, the Dems effort to change the tone is off to a bit of a mixed start.

We also note that the now-nationally prominent Mr. McNickle went to Boston on behalf of his newspaper with the notion of being a conservative gadfly (so far, so good), and with a promise to blog live from the convention (no post on his side of this story yet - some blog.)

UPDATE: Oliver Willis has a fine new site which is NOT subtitled "Like Kryptonite to Stupid" Good thing. In his comment on this, Mr.Willis tells us that "Based on the video, it appears that the "reporter" in question attempted to attribute a quote to Mrs. Kerry that she didn't say."

July 25, 2004

An oddly passive John Kerry, showing how he might take charge of a problem:

In response to a question, Mr. Kerry said he has given no thought to the possibility of a terrorist attack taking place in the midst of the presidential campaign. "I don't think about it; I can't control it," he said.

Hello? We are not asking him to go to Logan and hand-check every passenger's luggage; we are wondering whether he is inclined to suggest something like a contingency plan. A terrorist attack on election day could re-create the confusion of Florida 2000 and undermine the legitimacy of the next President - he hasn't thought about it? He hasn't thought about it because he can't control it?

Lots of things will happen that a president can't control. What the President can try to control is the pre-planning, and the coordination of an appropriate response. Enough with the New Age self-help, John - Read the job description.

Now, the reporter pressed him - whether he wanted to throw Tall John a lifeline is your guess (and we've seen this before with these two):

He at first declined to say whether he thought the nation should be prepared to postpone the election if there is an attack, which is what took place with the New York City mayoral primary that was scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001, saying it was hypothetical question. But reminded that such a proposal was being discussed in Washington last week, he said he would strongly oppose any such move.

"I cannot imagine a worse signal to the world than to suggest that this, the greatest democracy in the world, could possibly be interrupted by an act of terror," Mr. Kerry said.

A hypothetical question? "How should we prepare for and respond to a possible Al Qaeda attack?"; "I can't respond to that, it's a hypothetical question". Gee, I feel safer already.

So often I find myself wondering - is it true, or did I just read it in the Times?

On Friday, the Dead Tree Times introduced this odd perspective into what happened on Flight 93:

...The report from the 9/11 Commission on Thursday provided new, chilling details about what happened in the cockpit of Flight 93 in its last minutes. It provides a gripping account of the battle to gain control of the aircraft by passengers who knew that terrorists had seized the plane and were determined to prevent them from using it as a missile. It also discloses that the phrase "Let's roll," previously reported as a rallying cry for those passengers, may have been misinterpreted.

...The voice recorder captured sounds of continued fighting, and Mr. Jarrah pitched the plane up and then down. A passenger is heard to say: "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"

Then a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" While earlier accounts reported the phrase as "Let's roll," which was repeated in speeches by President Bush and became the title of a bestseller, some aviation experts have speculated that this was actually a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram.

Here is a (possibly transient) link to that version of the story. An RSS link to the July 23 version is not available. However, the earlier (July 22) version does not include the speculation about "Let's roll". Evidently, more time for reflection and research has not helped this story improve.

Now, do I even need to tell you how seriously wrong the print version is? Without looking it up, I can tell you that the common belief is that Todd Beamer used the phrase in a phone conversationbefore the passengers began their attack. I also recall his wife saying it was a favorite phrase of his, and that the kids used it around the house all the time, which is certainly plausible - it is not like his last words were "Veni, vidi, vici" or "Rosebud".

But what I do need to look up is this - did the 9/11 report actually address the "Let's Roll" controversy, as the Times suggests? A word search of the main document says they did not. The "roll it" reference appears on p. 14, with a footnoted reference to the cockpit voice recorder as a source. As noted, this phrase was used during the final assault on the cockpit door. "Let's roll" is not mentioned.

So what was the Timesman thinking, why is his story getting worse instead of better as he rewrites it, and will his editors eventually intervene?

One guess is that over-eager reporter Michael Wald thought he had a scoop, and, although he managed to get some idle speculation from "some aviation experts", he forgot to run his fantasy past anyone in the building. Gee, reporters get excited just like bloggers! Too bad they don't have Google - maybe the Times could spring for a subscription.

For a gloomier guess as to what happened inside this Timesman's head, check the comments at Atrios (source of the Times link). Many of the commenters creditably point out that Todd Beamer might really have said "Let's roll" even though Bush later repeated it, and that the Flight 93 passengers might really be heroes even though Bush says they are. However, some of the comments take a different tack.

Lest you wonder, the LA Times realized that "Roll it" and "Let's roll" were distinct. I have not spent a lot of time checking other papers.

Now, the blogosphere (or general outrage) bent the AP to our implacable will on a related story. We can do this.

July 24, 2004

Not exactly, but Joe Wilson is scheduled to be in Boston, according to the LA Times:

The "Campaign for America's Future" will host three days of "Take Back America" events concurrent with the convention, open to Democratic leaders, activists and "progressive" delegates. Headliners will include former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), "Nickel and Dimed" author Barbara Ehrenreich, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and former Vice President Al Gore.

...Another forum will air "the debacle in Iraq [that] has left America more isolated, more reviled, and less safe" — with such panelists as staunch antiwar Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the last of the Democratic candidates to withdraw from the presidential race, and Joseph Wilson, the former U.S. chargé d'affaires in Iraq and author of "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity."

Ignore the airbrushing, Joe - Get some camera time with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi!

Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard wrote recently that several media figures - Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, Nick Kristof of the NY Times, and Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis of The New Republic - had all written stories with Joe Wilson as a source. Appearing on Paula Zahn, Joe Wilson announced that all of these stories were based on misquotes and misattributions.

Fans of the Joe Wilson story will find this post to be astonishing. Kevin seems to be speculating that the timing of Wilson's leaks and public statements were driven by information held only inside the CIA and passed to him by his wife.

Whoa. Any hopes I had for the crown of "Most Extreme Wilson Critic" have been dashed.

And this speculation will not hearten Wilson's supporters; clearly, his wife's involvement in his trip and its aftermath becomes important if we seriously think she may have been feeding CIA info to the media through him while hiding behind her covert status (not to mention press protection and spousal immunity). Those agent protection statutes are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available.

We don't criticize you, but we do.

And to put a few more logs on the fire - the Senate investigators were curious about what Wilson knew, and how he knew it (p. 44):

...Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the XXX intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from XXXXX intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal.

Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report .

Fine, so no one remembered or was willing to 'fess up. Maybe it's that simple. But there is a question about who recommended him; no one signed him to a confidentiality agreement; his anonymous leaks to the press were "misleading", his explanation to the Senate staff was comical, and he has subsequently changed his story in appearances with Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn.

A cautious prosecutor might follow Kevin Drum's lead and catch a whiff of rat here. Who wouldn't?

A Late Note: Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard has been pursuing the press angle; Walter Pincus of the WaPo is non-responsive, but Nick Kristof stands by his story, for now.

Excerpts from Kevin's post below:

LATE UPDATE: More grist for Kevin's mill - Wilson's story is that he didn't object to the SOTU at the time because he thought maybe the African country is question was not Niger. But this State Dept. chat sheet identified Niger in December 2002, as noted by Seymour Hersh in March 2003. Maybe something else influenced Wilson's timing...

I hope this can help folks distinguish between real courage and Hollywood courage - you know, Michael Moore daring to speak the truth about a corrupt Administration, that sort of thing. The courage to say something that everyone within earshot and everyone within your social circle will agree with. The courage to make a movie that nets you millions and makes you the darling of the left...